For Worse Or For Better

                                                                                              

Perhaps Thomas Wolfe understood better than we. In his book You Can't Go Home Againⁱ he wrote:

“They had flung away the earnings of a lifetime, and mortgaged those of a generation to come. They had ruined their city, and in doing so had ruined themselves, their children, and their children's children.”

He was speaking of debt incurred in the hope of making money in the future. In the situation he described, it paid for building, but it really represented the present's destruction of future generations. It was, after all, they who would wind up responsible for it. Their frenzied action, their rush to provide for the future, would hurt not only themselves, but those for whom they were building.

That was private debt, but it's no different, or perhaps it's worse, when a government, in a rush to provide for the future, doesn't consider the consequences of its actions, and saddles those who follow with the cost of our sins. We're now servicing the debts piled up for us by prior administrations and making it worse for our children and grandchildren – the “generation to come,” or, more accurately, the generations to come. We have “mortgaged” our future and theirs.

There isn't much we can do about it. At least not quickly. But we can take steps to prevent the situation from worsening. The debit/credit card proposal which I discussed last weekⁱⁱ could be a tool in such an effort but it is only a part. Especially important is the debit card side, one linked to a savings account, since it is critical that we pay for everything from this point on rather than increase our debt. It's easiest to understand our problem when we consider our national expenses: they can be summarized by the mnemonic “DEMISE,” and they are Defense, Entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, Interest on past loans, Social Security, and Everything else. Two of them, defense and interest, are specifically listed as justifications for taxation in the Constitution. The others, like Topsy, just grew up along the way, but they are adding to the crippling debt we now have, and to our overall budget problem.ⁱⁱⁱ

The one of greatest interest to me in this series of essays is “Entitlements.” (I suspect that the government credit card discussed in the previous essay would be helpful in decreasing the costs in the other categories, but I shall not pursue that at this time.^iv) I began that discussion a couple of weeks ago, and I shall continue by listing a series of short statements about them (entitlements). Perhaps these repeat what I've said in the past, but they will help clarify some points in the present discussion.  They are not in the Constitution but they were created by our (Federal, State, and Local) government(s).

1. Many view them as mandated charity^v which, like many other programs, they have to fund as taxpayers, whether or not they agree with them or can avail themselves of them.
2. They have been subject to billions of dollars of fraud which has added to the bill we all have to foot.
3. Using guilt and the proper code words and jargon, our representatives, with misleading claims, have been able to convince the voters that they want these programs.
4. People are generous with the government money that funds the benefits because they don't see it as their own, even though they are supported through taxes. Tell them how much their taxes would go down for each one eliminated and they might be more frugal.

Of course there are many other programs which we have been forced to fund that are not listed in the Constitution, and many taxes not foreseen by the Founders, and these, too, contribute to our debt. I shall deal with those as well when I make some suggestions about possible changes in our tax policies, and I shall continue the discussion of this problem next week. At that time I'll mention some of the other tax-supported areas that might profitably be rethought.

Next episode: “Buyer Prepare” – You pay for what you get. Or, at least, you should.

i      1940

ii     “The Route Of All Evil,” April 21, 2013.

iii    http://www.usdebtclock.org/ I've given this reference before, but as we approach a national debt of seventeen trillion dollars, it's well to keep the figures in mind. Soon enough we, or our descendants, will have to pay the piper.

iv     I'll make some mention of it in the future, but I'm sure you can come up with additional uses for such a card.

v    True charity is voluntary, not mandated, and the result of the individual considering what he is willing to give, and for what purpose.

The Route Of All Evil

                                                                             

Yes, I know. This essay is supposed to be “For Worse Or For Better,” but while I was thinking about taxes it struck me that money should be discussed first. Money is a great concept. Even the stuff earned and used legally. And the original Constitution provides for taxes in order to provide money “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.”ⁱ And to pay debts, etc. you need money. Right?

Well, yes. In concept. But I think we're doing it wrong. According to legend,ⁱⁱ the devil invented paper money. They say that the devil is in the details, and this invention is one that really fouls things up. The old saw, “The road to Hell is the route of all evil”ⁱⁱⁱ certainly proves true here. (And coins are even worse. There's no more likely cause for a torn pocket than jingling change.) However useful money may seem to be, the reality is that we'd be far better off without it. Whatever good intentions may be associated with the love of money,^iv from a practical point of view there are serious problems.

One that's obvious is that everyone wants it. Including bad guys. Without cash, street crime and other robberies would be markedly diminished. Theft of valuables would persist,^v but they're likely to be more identifiable than unmarked bills. And bank robberies would make no sense if there's nothing to take. Money is a stimulus to crime, so let's get rid of it. Keep the little old ladies who walk the streets (and everyone else) safe.

Another problem with money is that illegal funds are easy to hide. Have you ever been asked by some tradesman to pay cash? “I won't have to charge you tax.” And, of course, he won't have to declare the income, nor pay the income tax that will result from reporting that income. That will create two criminals with a single transaction – two traveling along the fabled route of all evil. And it will cut down on government income.

In addition, unreported money can be laundered and transferred to some other storage place. Taking the cash and dealing with it creatively, you can all but make it disappear. All you need is the money and a cooperative bank. Especially if you know how to stay below reporting thresholds. Don't count on the banks, who make a fortune from such transactions, to stop transfers that they know to be shady.

That leaves the rest of us – the honest citizens and taxpayers – in the hole. Our taxes have to be raised because others have found ways not to pay theirs. We even have to pay for the officials who monitor^vi the banks that have been abetting these illegal practices.

It is also costly to pay for the printing of so many varieties of bills. And that's especially the case if all they do is cause mischief. If they're the invention of the devil, we don't need them.

So what's the solution? Eliminate money! Not conceptually but physically. If there were no bills to carry around, many of the problems I've described would be eliminated. The trick is to maintain our economy, the basis for our society, while decreasing society's risks and costs.

Unfortunately the way that this can be accomplished most efficiently is one that will have exponents of privacy and civil liberties, as well as liberals of all stripes (and conspiracy theorists), up in arms. They will be certain that this is only the first step^vii in the establishment of tyrrany and mind control. But in an age when our DNA is on record, along with our fingerprints, IP addresses, Social Security numbers, and so much additional information including our taxes; when Facebook, Twitter, and so many of the other social media, know more about us than we do ourselves; when facial recognition software can identify us and the GPS's in so many of our devices can locate us, no one should have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Big Brother is watching us. Get over it and move on.

The solution, then, is to institute a system of universal debit cards or something analogous. If all transactions, including salaries and sales, are carried out using these cards, and all our funds listed in a single account, the government can determine our income tax without our even having to file any form unless we want to submit information that we think will lower our taxes. And taxes will always be paid directly without risk of late payment and the fees and penalties arising from that.  Additionally, the government may collect the fees for the cards.  It would be quite a money maker and possibly lower our taxes.

Our incomes will go to the account represented and all purchases will be debited from it. We can be given a warning when we approach a preset lower limit of savings – perhaps enough to pay our income taxes.^viii Additionally, the card can serve as a credit/debit card for other purposes and licenses^ix (eg driver's, gun, professional) can be integrated into it, as can a passport.

Of course there will be the concern about stolen cards and their misuse, but they can be countered by the requirement for some biometric input that will prevent their use by someone not registered for the account in question. The loss of a card may be damaging, but so is the loss of a wallet now, and a mechanism of rapid replacement can be implemented using the biometric as an identifier.^x And other uses will certainly be identified.

There will be problems and objections in addition to the loss of privacy. Credit card companies will object to the nationalization of their industry as will tax preparers, but the cost of government will go down, bills will be paid on time, and individuals will be better able to stick within their budgets and save money. And I wouldn't be too worried about the commercial companies that are crying. Private enterprise will find a way to make a profit in the new environment. They always do.

The only ones who may need special treatment are the kids. We'll have to have change and one dollar bills. How else can you get candy?

Next episode: “For Worse Or Better” – We'll try again.

i      Subsequent additions and interpretations allow the government to use tax money for many additional projects including payroll-padding, welfare, aiding their supporters, and the like, but taxes will be discussed at another time.

ii     Faust and elsewhere.

iii    Or something like that.

iv     “When I'm rich I'll help everyone.” And if you believe that ...

v      Of course the market for such goods will be diminished. Someone who wants to keep a stolen item so he can look at it, like an artwork or rare baseball card, will do so. But that works only if he steals it for himself. If someone else does so and he wants to buy it, he'll have more difficulty.

vi     Or are paid off by them.

vii    It's hardly the first step. People have been gathering data on you for years. Collectors include the government, pollsters, everyone with a URL requiring you to sign in, and probably your neighbor who has videotaping capability on his “smart” phone (in fact his phone is probably smarter than he is), and all the snoopy people in your life.

viii   Including state and local taxes.

ix     No, not artistic or poetic.

x      Such biometric identifiers could also be used for ATMs, but the system would eliminate the need for them altogether.

Charity – A New Look

My granddaughter inspired me. She was working on a project that she really enjoyed and was being paid for it. What could be better?

What could be better is that when the job was done she was given a bonus. But she didn't feel that it was due her, so she asked me to act as an intermediary to an official of an organization in which I am active, in order that she might pass on the bonus without identifying herself. Of course I knew the donor, but from the perspective of the organization it was an anonymous gift.

That's what charity is. Not that it is simply an anonymous gift, but it is an offering made consciously and voluntarily, and without any expectation of reward. In fact it need not be anonymous, but it is voluntary.ⁱ

Most religions emphasize our responsibility for the needy; for the poor and the hungry – the sick and the homeless. And there are many who abjure organized religion but share the same feeling of responsibility. When our country was founded, there were many who had faith in the goodness of their fellows; they trusted human nature. So our Constitution made no reference to the needy. When they could not be aided by members of their own families, however, there were usually community organizations to help out. And the same is true today. There are many in the community who can be relied on to assist those requiring help – to share their good fortune with those less fortunate. And that includes many who are not well off – perhaps the recipients of aid themselves – people who are grateful for the help they have received from others and who recognize that some are even more needy than they.

It's a beautiful idea that there is a willingness to share what you have so that others can be as well off as you are, but, sadly, it isn't the norm. We'd like “human nature” to promote a spirit of compassion in us all, but it is more likely that our greater interest is in what could prove to be a benefit for ourselves: we might decry the evil of the “one percent” who are oppressing the remaining ninety-nine percent of us, but if offered the opportunity to be part of the “rich,” there are few who would refuse it.

A few hundred years ago, the liberals, who prevailed in the founding of our Republic, were optimistic, and they put their faith in human nature. That, however, is no longer the case; our leaders don't trust the average citizen to love his neighbor and provide for the needy. They believe, however, that help needs to be providedⁱⁱ and they know how to do it. They know what is best and they formulate plans to achieve it. Ideally that would be with the agreement and support of those whom they represent, but they will usuallyⁱⁱⁱ have their way irrespective of preferences of their constituents. It's easy to convince voters of the virtue of feeding and clothing the poor, of providing shelter for the homeless, of healing the sick. The government can certainly afford to do so. And it's especially easy when you don't have to pay for it yourself. (At least that's the impression they give.) It's the responsibility of the rich.^iv They can afford it and they're obligated to do so.

And our representatives are eager to promote that kind of attitude. It means votes. When they are identified as supporters of programs that help citizens, they've taken good will earned by payments from the government, and converted it into supporters for the next election. However they've also created the expectation that this new allocation is something to which the recipients are entitled. It's not charity from the government, rather it's something owed them.

But the handout is not a voluntary one. It's a mandate created by our representatives, to be paid for by the government. As such it becomes a right, and it is not charity. And it's one that, by and large, has the support of our citizens. But it's only right that the government give aid to those in need, isn't it?

Perhaps it is. After all our representatives approved it, and they did so with our consent. But in order to get our consent they misled many of us. They did so by telling us only part of the story: they made our generosity seem like a free ride for us. The government would take care of it. They didn't tell us, for example, that in order to fund the service of providing free health care for an individual it will cost us individually, and that our taxes could be lowered if we didn't do so. Nor nor did they inform us that our personal expenses might be significantly less if we didn't feed people we don't know, or clothe people we don't like. They didn't tell us that we, individually, through our governmental “charity,” are letting many of those out of work buy things that we'd think twice before getting for ourselves. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a mechanism designed to aid the needy, but people should understand that they – not some distant institution – are paying for it. They're giving charity according to the whims^v of their representatives. There might be a different attitude if you told someone his taxes would be $100 or $1,000 less^vi if this or that program were eliminated. But taxpayers can't say no without the risk of repercussions – though some take the risk.

Over the next few weeks I'd like to talk^vii a little about charity and taxes. Specifically I'd like to review some of the implications of the present system as well as to suggest some alternatives. There are needs that must be met; there are expectations among the needy; and there is a system in place that may not be accomplishing all we need.

Next episode: “For Worse Or For Better” – It's better to give than to receive. Or is it?

i      My granddaughter's generosity was one of the factors responsible for my making a significant gift to another organization. It wasn't anonymous, though I didn't advertise it. But it was voluntary.

  

ii     Although it is not always clear whose benefit is uppermost in their thinking – the needy, their constituents, or the politicians themselves.

iii    Not always, but usually. It may require that they misrepresent what they are doing but, as they say, all's fair in love and politics.

iv     “Rich” means anyone with more money than me.

v      Both in terms of what services the government provides at taxpayer expense, and who gets those services.

vi     That's a lot of lottery tickets or fast food, or whatever else is important to him. And if he wins the lottery he'll promise to give some of the winnings to charity. Whether lottery winners actually give some of the bounty to charity is a different issue.

vii    Actually write. No. Type.

Dancing In The Streets

                                                                                        

Dancing in the streets. That's what is likely to happen every time a rocket from Gaza lands in Israel and kills someone. The more victims the better. And the same will probably happen if a suicide bomber in some Israeli city or town kills several people or if some other incident occurs which results in the death of anyone in the vicinity.

The dancing, of course, will be in the cities and towns of Gaza, as well as in other areas inhabited by Muslims. Perhaps it won't involve the majority, but it won't be discouraged by them either. The depth of hatred cannot be understated. And it may be felt by people who have never seen an Israeli or a Jew. From infancy there are so many who have been taught to hate, and their feelings are fanned regularly by their clergymen who should be teaching love and tolerance.

But the raw emotion and hatred may have other causes and other results:

LONDON -- The song Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead is on course to reach No. 4 on the United Kingdom's Official Singles Chart because of a Facebook campaign by opponents of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

The death Monday of Thatcher, 87, from a stroke has prompted celebrations among some Britons who despise her still 23 years after she left office.

That article appeared a few minutes ago on the USA Today web site, and there are numerous other similar stories. The singing seems to be the British equivalent of dancing in the streets. And it is occurring among a group including many who were not alive, or were not politically aware, during the time when Prime Minister Thatcher was leader of the country.

It is generally recognized that under her leadership Great Britain, which had been deemed an economic “basket case” was much strengthened. A few days ago USA Today told more about her:

When Margaret Thatcher came to power the United Kingdom was in the last chance saloon. Labor markets were highly unionized; the commanding heights of the economy were dominated by loss-making behemoths; marginal tax rates were eye-wateringly high; and the rich, famous and talented were fleeing overseas. Either the U.K. fixed it then or headed ever deeper into economic and social turmoil.

Some eleven years later she had put the great back into Great Britain.

Ms. Thatcher acted on her beliefs in free market economy and in firmness when involved in negotiations with the actors in British economic and political institutions. She was uncompromising when dealing with tax matters, unions, banks, and other forces in British fiscal life. Her firmness internationally, especially with the USSR and its allies, was also notable, earning her the title of “Iron Lady” from a Soviet journalist. Her stance, and her alliance with President Reagan, played a significant part in the end of the Soviet Union.

Her conservative outlook, especially vis-a-vis the labor unions, however, earned her the enmity of those to her left, and they have passed this view on to their political followers. They have educated those over whom they have influence to hate as they do. The issue is not the strength of their country, but the state of their bank accounts. It's the economy, stupid. Their interest is not what they can do for their country but what their country can do for them.

And the passion and vehemence of her opponents has led to glee over her death. They exult over the passing of “The Witch.” When you've been educated to hate, dancing in the street or singing in the flat will be the natural expression of your feelings. Even if your relief is justified, revenge is not a responsible human reaction. And sometimes, your feelings will not be warranted but will have been imposed on you by others, making the blood-thirst even more reprehensible.

Another Briton, John Donne wrote “any man's death diminishes me.” Those who are so convinced of their own virtue and the iniquity of those they oppose, that they sing their pleasure, should understand that even if they are not wrong, and that is not always the case, rejoicing should not be the reaction to the death or misfortune of another.

If I've Said It Once

 

                                                                                           

After a long period during which I kept my activities to myself, I told my wife about this blog. So she started reading it.

All that she's said so far – apart from the fact that I made some spelling errorsⁱ – is that I sometimes repeat myself. And she's right. But there are reasons for that, to wit:ⁱⁱ

I write these essays as a way of putting my thoughts in front of me: so I can work them out and clarify them. They're usuallyⁱⁱⁱ things that are bothering me – what I see as society's wrong turns,^iv both in terms of its ideas and its actions. I know when it's wrong, but I'm not always clear on how to present the specifics of what constitutes the right path because I've always been so sure of myself^v that I never gave the matter much thought. I never had to. So when I finally get around to doing so, there are times when I don't get it completely right the first time. Not that what I wrote is wrong,^vi but it may be incomplete, not having dealt with all the idiotic arguments of those who are wrong. Perhaps I viewed some of them as so unfounded that as far as I was concerned they weren't worthy of response or further thought. Some of the points I've discussed, however, may have been advanced subsequent to my initial essay on the subject. Indeed. I haven't fully resolved all the issues yet.^vii Perhaps I will, at some time, have additional, and certainly sagacious, words on the subject.

In any event, however, even when I've pondered some idea for a long time, and satisfied myself that my position is the correct one,^viii the subject might continue in my thoughts. What bothered me once may still do so, and I'll sometimes come upon a completely different approach to it which will also require working out. And possibly a new essay on the subject.^ix And the reworking of the idea may include some of the words and phrases used before. But that's not anything new. All us geniuses do so – lifting snippets from the past as we create something new. Bach and Mozart repeated ideas as well. I may seem arrogant putting myself alongside them, but, great as they were, I suspect I write better twenty-first century American English than they. (Actually that must mean I'm superior to those great geniuses. No. Let me be humble. I'm merely their equal.)

And part of the apparent repetition may be due to the fact that some of the words and phrases I use are similar to ones I've used before, even if the subject has been changed. But stylistic issues can't be blamed for the situation. More often I don't remember all of what I've written before. And I've expounded on so many subjects that I can't go back and read all my past essays. The result is that I may say some things twice, or even three times.

But, of course, one of the most important reasons is that once you've started along the path of my instruction, you won't want to turn off your computer until you've read all my thoughts, beginning in October of 2010. Thus, while individual essays may have been written months apart, you may wind up reading them in rapid succession, without having left a sufficient amount of time to digest one, and consider its wisdom, before you come across another on the same subject. However my thinking on the issue may have matured, the discussion so soon after you read the previous exposition may seem gratuitous. Development and change may not be noticed and the expression of the newer ideas may seem like no more than repetition. Under such circumstances that's to be expected. As brilliant as I am, I cannot anticipate and compensate for all the different approaches which the subject presents. Live with it.

If I've said it once, it's probably important enough for me to say again.

By the way, it strikes me that another reason why my wife may find my ideas repetitive is that she's heard most of them before when I shoot my mouth off at home. That won't stop me from boring educating everyone else however.

Next episode: “Charity – A New Look” – At it and for it.

i      Actually there were no spelling errors. Some of the words were homophones of the ones intended, but since they were spelled correctly, the spell-checker didn't catch them.

ii     I don't get many opportunities to use that construction, and this is a good time. I don't think I've used it before so I won't be repeating myself. Next time, though ...

iii    But not always.

iv     Things are always getting worse, and I don't hesitate to say so.

v      For good reason. My instincts are so accurate that I rarely need to analyze them. When some fool comes up with silly drivel, however, I like to think about the ways he's wrong and I'm right.

vi     Sir Oracle is never wrong.

vii    For example, the issue of taxes as the source of charity for those whom members of Congress view as needy continues to play an important part in my thinking, and, consequently, I'll devote the next few essays on this subject. I have some new (for me) ideas on the subject and it is possible that some of my suggestions will be of value in solving this conundrum. (I doubt it, though, because the American public, which directs Congress as it “leads” us, isn't always up to critical thinking about significant issues. Fortunately Sir Oracle exists to enlighten them. Unfortunately, however, they never read his wise thoughts nor follow them.)

viii   As I've said, it could not be otherwise.

ix     See note number vii. The next few essays will cover the subjects of charity, taxes, and responsibility.